The Son Also Rises Read online

Carron

  613

  De Colavilla

  Colville, Colvill

  1,271

  Corbet

  Corbett

  12,096

  De Corbun

  Corbon

  —

  De Albamarla

  Damarel

  122

  De Arcis

  D’Arcy, Darcey, Darcy

  4,039

  De Curcy

  De Courcy, Courcy

  219

  De Ver

  De Vere, Vere

  556

  Giffard

  Gifford, Giffard

  2,382

  De Glanville

  Glanville

  2,826

  De Lacy

  Lacey, Lacy

  14,782

  Malet

  Mallett

  4,948

  De Magnavilla

  Mandeville, Manderville, Manderfield

  514

  De Maci

  Massey, Massie, Macy

  15,056

  De Montague

  Montague

  3,282

  De Montfort

  Montford, Monford

  298

  De Mon Gomerie

  Montgomery, Mongomery

  7,524

  De Mortemer

  Mortimer

  12,008

  De Molbrai

  Mowbray

  2,059

  De Nevilla

  Neville

  7,998

  De Percy

  Percy, Percey

  3,284

  De Pomerai

  Pomeroy, Pomery, Pomroy

  2,312

  De Sackville

  Sackville

  64

  De Sai

  Say, Saye

  1,230

  De Sancto Claro

  St Clair, Sinclair

  17,143

  Taillebois

  Tallboy(s), Talbot

  16,857

  De Tournai

  Tournay, Tourney

  61

  De Venables

  Venables

  3,857

  De Villare

  Villars, Villers, Villiers

  1,054

  There is evidence that the population share of Norman surnames continued to increase from 1560 to 1881. For the sample used here, the share of Norman-derived surnames in the population as a whole was 0.32 percent in the years 1538–99, 0.46 percent in 1680–1709, 0.47 percent in 1770–99, and 0.50 percent by 1881. The Norman surname share in the population for the period 1200–1538 is thus calculated assuming the same growth rate in the generations before 1538 as for 1538–1709.

  Figure 4.6 shows the relative representation of Norman surnames at Oxford and Cambridge from 1170 to 2012. Again there is steady regression to the mean, so that today Norman surnames are only about 25 percent overrepresented at the universities compared to other indigenous English surnames. The distribution of these surnames across social positions in England is now close to the average.

  Again, however, the rate of regression to the mean is startlingly low. It has been 947 years since the Norman conquest of 1066. The fact that Norman surnames had not become completely average in their social distribution by 1300, by 1600, or even by 1900 implies astonishingly slow rates of social mobility during every epoch of English history. The estimated intergenerational correlation for the period 1170–1589 is 0.90. For the years 1590–1800, the rate of regression to the mean is even slower, as with the propertied elite surnames of the thirteenth century, but this period of slow regression was followed by a period of somewhat faster social mobility from 1800 to 2012. As a result, the persistence rate of 0.90 correctly predicts the Norman surname share at Oxford and Cambridge now (figure 4.7).

  FIGURE 4.6. Relative representation of Norman surnames at Oxford and Cambridge, 1170–2012.

  FIGURE 4.7. Gary Neville, football’s representative of the Norman elite.

  A persistence parameter of 0.90 over twenty-eight generations implies two things. The first is that there is a consistent and stable regression of status toward the mean: in the long run, we are all equal in expectation. The second is that if this parameter is valid for medieval and modern England as a whole, then more than four-fifths of social and economic outcomes are determined at birth. Again we have to ask whether selective name changing has artificially boosted the status of some of these Norman surnames in more recent years. Chapter 14 discusses some other surprising persistence associated with Norman surnames in England.

  Wealth

  The records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC), the probate court of the upper class of England from 1380 to 1858, show a broadly similar pattern for wealth mobility as for educational status. The index of the PCC contains nearly a million estates probated before 1858, so this is a rich source of data on social status before 1858. As figure 4.1 shows, artisan surnames have a normal overall representation in this court by 1550 and proportional representation among higher-status groups (such as “gentlemen”) by 1620. This is a modestly slower rate than that of their diffusion into the universities. The implied persistence rate for the artisan surnames is thus slightly higher than from the Oxford and Cambridge data, on the order of 0.80–0.85.

  FIGURE 4.8. Medieval elites in PCC probates, 1380–1858.

  Figure 4.8 shows the relative representation of the three medieval elite surname groups among all PCC probates: locative surnames, the IPM surnames of the thirteenth century, and the Norman surnames of the Domesday Book. Counting these probates as the top 5 percent of the wealth distribution, which they represented from 1680 onward, gives the best-fitting estimates of persistence shown in table 4.3 for four surname groups (the three elite groups and artisans). These estimates fall in the range 0.74–0.85. The rate of upward mobility for the artisan surnames is just as slow as the rate of downward mobility for the medieval elite surnames.

  There is a yet more elite group revealed in the probate records: those whose wills were proved in the PCC and who were also described by an honorific such as Sir, Gentleman, Earl, Duke, Lord, Lady, Countess, Count, Baron, Bishop, or Reverend. These persons account for only one in ten probates in the Canterbury court, a group that is taken to represent the top 0.5 percent of wealth. Figure 4.9 shows the relative representation of the three elite surname groups among the high-status PCC probates. These are shown for the period from 1440 onward because their numbers are too small in earlier generations to calculate meaningful persistence rates. Table 4.3 shows the best-fitting persistence rate for this more exclusive stratum. Persistence here is somewhat stronger than among the less exclusive PCC probates, but the estimates are very consistent across the groups, at 0.85–0.88.

  TABLE 4.3. Persistence estimates for different surname types among elite groups, 1380–1858

  FIGURE 4.9. Medieval elites in high-status PCC probates, 1440–1858.

  Table 4.3 also shows, for comparison purposes, the persistence estimates for those attending the universities up to 1590. These numbers are consistent in the picture they paint of early English society. There was very slow but consistent social mobility generation after generation, which brought the descendants of the artisans and the propertied elites of the thirteenth century to nearly equivalent social status by the eve of the Industrial Revolution. By 1770, the high-status locative surnames of the Middle Ages had dropped to average social status, measured in terms of their representation at the universities and in PCC probates. At the same time, the artisan surnames had risen to average status. However, social mobility occurred at such a stately pace that those bearing the surnames of the propertied elite of the thirteenth century identified from the Inquisitions Post Mortem of 1236–99 and those bearing surnames derived from the Norman conquerors were still modestly overrepresented among the wealthy and educated in 1770. For example, in 1770 Norman surnames occurred 2.5 times as frequently as expected among Oxford and Cambridge students, 2.1 times as frequently among high-status
PCC probates, and 1.6 times as frequently among all PCC probates. But since those bearing such surnames made up less than 1 percent of the English population, the obverse side of this finding is that more than 97 percent of those attending Oxford or Cambridge, or whose wills were proved in the PCC, had non-Norman surnames.

  Conclusions

  We see in medieval England slow but persistent rates of social mobility similar to those in modern Sweden and the United States. The surname data we examine show absolutely no sign that any of the intellectual, social, and economic advances between 1300 and 2000 in England produced much increase in social mobility. Neither the Reformation in the sixteenth century, nor the Enlightenment of the early eighteenth century, nor the Industrial Revolution of the late eighteenth century, nor the political reforms of the nineteenth century, nor the rise of the welfare state in the twentieth century, seems to have had much effect on intergenerational mobility.

  The next chapter looks more specifically at mobility rates across many dimensions in modern England, before chapter 6 theorizes about what all this means about the process of social mobility.

  1 But from spinner we get spinster, which came to refer to any unmarried woman.

  2 This analysis is based on 129 occupational surnames for which the holder’s current occupation was also revealed.

  3 People entered Oxford and Cambridge at age 16–18 and typically died at age 50 or later. So to compare people of the same birth cohort, we need to shift the probate data backward by thirty years or more.

  4 By marriage, Chaucer also became the brother-in-law of the immensely powerful John of Gaunt.

  5 Like many other rare names, the surname Chaucer itself is now lost to history.

  6 The original surnames would have included the particle de, but this was eventually dropped in most cases, except in such names as de Vere or D’Arcy.

  7 The Berkeley family took their name from their home castle in Berkeley in Gloucester. There are actually two branches of the Berkeley family. One is of Norman descent, and the other, more prominent one is allegedly descended from a high official of the Saxon king Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–66). Edward II was murdered while imprisoned by Lord Berkeley at Berkeley Castle in 1327.

  8 Keats-Rohan 1999.

  9 Clark 2007, 112–121.

  FIVE

  Modern England

  The Deep Roots of the Present

  THIS CHAPTER ESTIMATES SOCIAL MOBILITY RATES in England for the period 1830–2012. It does so using rare surnames, as most common surnames in England now differ little in social status: regression to the mean may be slow, but over the seven hundred years since surnames were formed in England, it has done its work in this respect. The use of rare surnames offers a means of addressing one objection to the conclusions in chapters 2–4: that if people know that certain surnames convey high or low status, then this awareness itself may affect social mobility rates. If the name Darcy is perceived as being of high status, then perhaps Darcys are more readily admitted to the right schools and recruited for prestigious jobs. If Bottom is perceived as connoting low status, then perhaps Bottoms never get a chance to show their worth. If von Essen is perceived by Swedes to be a surname of noble lineage, then perhaps the von Essens receive unmerited promotions and privileges. So it may be that, by measuring social mobility rates using surnames, we are incorporating effects that reduce mobility for those with distinctive surnames.

  Consider, for example, the following list of names drawn from the list of barristers in England in 2011: Franklin St Clair Melville Evans, Durand David Grenville Malet, Michael John Davy Vere-Hodge, Michael David Melville-Shreeve, Matthew Sean de la Hay Browne Brotherton, Jeremy Gaywood Grout-Smith, Alexandra Marika Niki Smith-Hughes, Mungo William Wenban-Smith, Alexander George Lavander Hill-Smith. These are not people you expect to meet at your local chip shop or job center. These names reek of class, privilege, and distinguished lineage.

  FIGURE 5.1. Rate of occurrence of common English surnames at Oxford and Cambridge per thousand of these names in the population in 2002.

  These names stand out in part because they are uncommon. As the previous chapter shows, common surnames tend to have close to average social status in modern England. One measure of the average status of a surname is the rate at which it shows up at Oxford and Cambridge compared to its incidence in the general population. Figure 5.1 shows the incidence of the twenty-five most common indigenous English surnames among students at Oxford and Cambridge from 1980 to 2012. These surnames tend to show up at very similar rates among this social elite. Smith and Jones, the two most common surnames, have slightly lower incidences than the average surname, a result found for these names among other elites. This is probably because some high-status people with the mundane surname Smith abandon it in favor of a more distinguished one. But even here, the effect is small.1

  Even common surnames that originated in the Middle Ages from the occupations of people of higher social status have reverted to average status. These include my own name, Clark(e), from cleric, which referred to both members of the church and attorneys. Other names derive from the titles of high manorial officials, such as Chamberlain, Butler, Bailey, Reeve, and Spencer (from dispenser). And there were high-status trades such as draper. Figure 5.1 shows the most common of these higher-status occupational surnames: they have no higher status now than the average common surname does.

  Rare surnames, by contrast, can vary significantly in social status, just from the forces of chance that affect the circumstances of the average holder of such a name. Fortunately for our purposes, some societies, including England, have always had many rare surnames. The occurrence of very rare names (held by only 1–4 people) in such records as censuses is probably artificially increased by errors of spelling and transcription in recording common names. But most names held by 5–50 people are genuine rare surnames. Thus in England in 1881, 5 percent of the population (1.4 million people) held 112,000 such rare surnames. In 2002, the same percentage (now 2.8 million people) held 215,000 such rare surnames.

  Rare surnames originated in various ways. The arrival of the Huguenots from France after 1685 brought names such as Abauzit, Bazalgette, and Bulteel to England. Spelling mutations from more common surnames created names like Bisshopp. And some names were always held by very few people, such as Pepys, Binford, and Blacksmith.

  Francis Galton, the Victorian polymath, cowrote a paper in 1874 that predicted the extinction of most rare surnames over time.2 There was concern at this time that the distinguished surnames of the aristocracy were dying out. However, in England, the stock of rare surnames has been replenished by immigrants bringing in new surnames and by the widespread adoption of hyphenated surnames by the English upper classes from the nineteenth century onward. There is no lack of rare surnames.

  As noted, the advantage of measuring social mobility with rare surnames is that most carry no status association. Table 5.1, for example, lists the first fifteen names from the samples of rare English surnames from the mid-nineteenth century used in this chapter from three different social groups: rich, prosperous, and poor. These surnames were held by 0–40 people in the 1881 census. They are labeled just as sample A, sample B, and sample C. Can you discern which is which? (The source note to the table reveals the answer.)

  In the analysis of social mobility using rare surnames, the first set of names examined are those of people dying between 1858 and 1887 (one generation), with names held by forty or fewer people in the 1881 census. This starting date was chosen because it was in 1858 that the modern comprehensive probate register was adopted (superseding an obscure complex of overlapping ecclesiastical-court records). From the comprehensive probate register, which gives an assessed value for all probated estates, the average wealth at death can be estimated for all surnames in England and Wales from 1858 to the present.

  TABLE 5.1. Rare English surname samples, 1858–87

  Sample A

  Sample B

  Sample C

>   Ahmuty

  Aller

  Agace

  Allecock

  Almand

  Agar-Ellis

  Angerstein

  Angler

  Aglen

  Appold

  Anglim

  Aloof

  Auriol

  Annings

  Alsager

  Bailward

  Austell

  Bagnold

  Basevi

  Backlake

  Benthall

  Bazalgette

  Bagwill

  Berthon

  Beague

  Balsden

  Brandram

  Berens

  Bantham

  Brettingham

  Beridge

  Bawson

  Brideoake

  Berners

  Beetchenow

  Broadmead

  Bigge

  Bemmer

  Broderip

  Blegborough

  Bevill

  Brouncker

  Blicke

  Bierley

  Brune

  The first such surname sample is 105 rare surnames from the top 5 percent of the wealth distribution in 1858. These are a mixture of rare indigenous names and foreign imports. Some of the surnames are well known: Brudenell-Bruce, Cornwallis, Courtauld, Leveson-Gower, and Sotheby. Charles Cornwallis, the first Marquess Cornwallis, was one of the leading British generals in the American War of Independence. The Courtaulds were of Huguenot heritage and founders of a famous textile firm. The Leveson-Gowers were among the richest aristocrats in England. The Sotheby family founded the famous auction house. The Brudenell-Bruces are an aristocratic family, marquesses of Ailesbury and earls of Cardigan, who now serve as an illustration of the power of social mobility. Their name appears frequently in the social pages of the English press. But their ancestral seat, Tottenham House, is in sad decay, as figure 5.2 illustrates. And the current Earl of Cardigan, David Brudenell-Bruce, has fallen on such reduced circumstances that he at times subsists on a jobseeker’s allowance of £71 a week.3